Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:36:17 02/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2002 at 07:28:37, Marc van Hal wrote:
>On February 05, 2002 at 06:32:24, Marc van Hal wrote:
>
>>On February 05, 2002 at 06:29:17, Marc van Hal wrote:
>>
>>>On February 05, 2002 at 06:28:03, Marc van Hal wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 05, 2002 at 06:23:05, Marc van Hal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 05, 2002 at 01:35:35, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On February 04, 2002 at 18:56:51, Marc van Hal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On February 04, 2002 at 17:13:35, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On February 04, 2002 at 16:37:53, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On February 04, 2002 at 16:19:04, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On February 04, 2002 at 16:04:52, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On February 04, 2002 at 15:37:38, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 04, 2002 at 11:40:07, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 04, 2002 at 10:38:04, David Rasmussen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for the link. Great article! I too am a weak chess player, and I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>also recently had an insight about focusing on tactics instead of positional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knowledge. I have 40 chess books or so, and of course some of them are about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I found this kind of things too dogmatic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The most important part of learning is interest and motivation. If you despise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>going through thousands of tactical exercises with nothing in between for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a year most probably your are going to quit after two weeks. This is like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the magic diets where you have to juggle your day around the diet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>As always, improvement is an individual effort and depends very much on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>individual. That's where the importance of the teacher comes, NOT TO EXPLAIN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>WHY Ba4 is better than Bxc6 in the Ruy Lopez.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tactics will be a key for a player, but might not be for another. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>hundreds of details that are important and some of them are not even related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to chess (like attention etc.). In general, tactics are very important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>particularly at that level, but it is not wise to separate it from everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tactical exercises are good, but it is never good to be 100% of the training.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah! do not forget to play real OTB chess, but not too much. 60-80 slow paced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>(anything that last more than 3 hours) games a year, select some and analyze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>them to death WITHOUT A COMPUTER, show it to a stronger player or a friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Share analysis... Then, use your computer. Keep a notebook with everything...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Miguel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I know what you mean, and I generally agree. I too find the article dogmatic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>but that doesn't matter, IMO. Sometimes that's needed to fight another (older)
>>>>>>>>>>>>dogma. The articles is even wrong at some points: It is not necesarily better to
>>>>>>>>>>>>be able to look 5 moves with "no positional knowledge (not even material?)",
>>>>>>>>>>>>than to look 4 moves with Grandmaster level positional knowledge. In chess
>>>>>>>>>>>>programming terms: There are a lot of evaluation terms that makes up for search
>>>>>>>>>>>>depth: If you have a passed pawn on the 6th rank supported by your king in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>endgame, with positional knowledge, you will know with a 0-ply search that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>is strong, whereas it takes a 3-ply search with "no knowledge" to see this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Besides, a GM can play a full game without calculating at all (say just 3-4
>>>>>>>>>>>plies) and outplay a 1900 player that spend 2 hours for the game.
>>>>>>>>>>>That's what happen in simuls.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I think that you are wrong to assume that the GM does not calculate at all.
>>>>>>>>>>I believe that few seconds of GM's calculation is simply often better than few
>>>>>>>>>>minutes of 1900's player calculation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Players in simuls against much weaker players do not calculate a damn thing.
>>>>>>>>>They just play the first move that pop into their heads. Once in a while they
>>>>>>>>>stop to calculate to finish up a game but that is the minority of the cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are less likely to blunder when your pieces are in the right spot and you
>>>>>>>>>follow plans that you did hundreds of times before. Not to mention if you
>>>>>>>>>managed to trade queens and went into an endgame. You can go into cruise control
>>>>>>>>>against a lesser player.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>>Miguel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I can give a simple example
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I know about the idea of the following simple mate:
>>>>>>>>Qc4+ Kg8-h8 Ne5-f7+ Kh8-g8 Nf7-h6+ Kg8-h8 Qc4-g8+ Rxg8 Nf7#
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Suppose that I play a simultan game against weak players and my opponent blunder
>>>>>>>>and give me the opportunity to use that idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In this case I win the game.
>>>>>>>>Did I win thanks to tactics?
>>>>>>>>yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Did I play the first move that I think about?
>>>>>>>>Yes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Playing the first move that you think about does not mean that you cannot
>>>>>>>>outsearch the opponent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I suspect that in part of the games the GM simply outsearch the opponent inspite
>>>>>>>>of the fact that it is a simultan game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actualy this is precisely what a diagramplayer thinks
>>>>>>>You say did I play the first moves I was thinking of yes
>>>>>>>Not looking at where Black's pieces where standing.
>>>>>>>I can give you a precise position where Qc4+ does not win and Qd5+ does win.
>>>>>>>Near the fact that my pawn on b5 can capture your queen hehe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is not going to happen to good players.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They are usually careful not to do stupid blunders and putting a piece at a
>>>>>>place that it can be captured not as part of a combinatopn is not going to
>>>>>>happen if they are good on tactics and tactics is not only combinations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>
>>>>>The blunder I have givven by the difernce of the moves Qc4+ or Qd5+
>>>>>Is quite comon.
>>>>>In that position Black threatens to give mate in 1!
>>>>>a Black rook is on f8 and black pawn on c5. nopawn! on the d-file a Black pawn
>>>>>on g7 a pawn on h7 and Black the king on g8
>>>>>the pawn on c5 stops the check on the 8th rank wich is necasery for White to
>>>>>give mate after rook takes f7.
>>>>>This is important to know to recognize the patern corectly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Marc
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards Marc
>>>>>After rook takes f7.
>>>>
>>>>Hehe I am a litle bit gulty of making the same mistake as you did ofcourse there
>>>>is only 1 black rook on the 8th rank ,the one on f8.
>the rook does not stand on the d-file
>>>And no queen
>>And the queen is not on f7 ,d7,d6 ,a5, b6, c7,e8,f7,g6,h5 h4 g5 f6 e7 or
>(with other words not on the diogonal a2-g8,h5-e8 a5-d8 h4-d8
>on the diogonal h5 e8
>Their is no bischop on d7 or d6 b6 a5 c7 or on d5 or f7 or h5 or g6 or e8
>
>(or with other words not on the diogonal a2-g8 h5-e8 a5-d8
>and no blocking piece on the d-file.)
>
>neither Well ofcourse in both cases you can't give check in the first play i
>mean with the queen on f7 or bischop on f7
>
>Also the knight does not stand on b7 c6 or e6 f7 h6 d7 d6 h8 d8 g5 or e5
>!With otherwords no piece protects the fields d8 or f7)
>or serve as a blocking piece on the d-file.
>
>ofcourse what counted for the bischop or queen on f7 also counts here for the
>knight on e6 f7
>With other words the knight may not protect the field d8- f7
>
>So in Short with this rook on f8 And Black threatens mate in 1
>the black pieces must not stand in such a way that they guard the f7 field
>or block the file between the place of the queen and the 8th rank or guard the
>field on the 8th rank.
>Or the king has a flight field.
>
>And it is precisely this what wanted to show
>My intention was not to embarase you.
>But to show what happens so often in practice.
>
>(For this reason I made so manny mistakes on purpose before i posted the main
>mesage.)
>
>because so many factors can change the position
>Also helpfull if you want to make such positions yourself.
>For tutorial purpuse.
>
>Regards Marc
Apart from your reference to the Philidor mate, I didn't understand any of the
rest. Could you post diagrams?
Albert
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.